|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote in
: On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:48:48 -0700, SMS wrote: Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. Yawn. Did you say something?? Acutally you didnt. Just more MV BS === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it often enough it much be true. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Jason wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it often enough it much be true. Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable! |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"SMS" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message news:A9ednZ71iLQoqQ7ZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@prairiewave. com... "SMS" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota Do you have any idea how dumb you sound? Have you ever biked in the Black Hills, there are several trails there shared between bikes and hikers, have not heard of any problems. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:06:34 -0700, SMS
wrote: Jason wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: I see you learned your methods from Hitler: repeat a lie often enough, and it will become true. But it didn't work fro him, did it? Its the same technique that you and ed use mikey, keep pounding at it often enough it much be true. Except I post referenced facts, while MV never has any references or citations for his statements. I think we all know who is more believable! You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:46:11 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "SMS" wrote in message .. . Edward Dolan wrote: My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. You can make it clearer by referring to the trails as trails. They are not hiking trails, or biking trails, or horse trails, they are trails. Unless a specific activity is banned, each user has the right to use the trails. Almost all trails as they were being used until recently were hiking trails. Mountain bikes are recent interlopers and are really messing things up for hikers. I think that most people understand that it's more peaceful for hikers to not have horses or bicycles on the trail, just as some bicyclists would prefer not to have hikers always in the way. We just have to learn to share, and work together to keep the real problem users off the trails, the motorized ATV vehicles. I would like to see bikes banned from most trails. There can be some trails for them in strictly recreational areas. For instance, the Black Hills of South Dakota could accommodate bike trails without causing too much damage as it is not a prime area for hikers in the first place. The same goes for the North Woods. But I do not like to see bikes in pristine mountain and desert areas of the West which have always been thought of as wilderness. The problem with MV is that rather than simply admitting that he'd enjoy hiking more if bicycles weren't allowed, he makes up stories about trail impact that have no basis in fact. I really do not have that much interest in the trail impact issue. I leave that to Vandeman. As far as I am concerned, there are irreconcilable differences with how bikers and hikers view nature and wilderness. I understand, and I agree. But the problem with that approach is that it's vulnerable to some fool mountain biker or politician saying "can't we all just get along?" (Of course, we CAN and DO get along; it's only the BIKES we have a problem with. Without their bikes, mountain bikers may still be idiots and liars, but they are at least TOLERABLE idiots and liars. That is the great issue for me. Any damage done to the trails and wildlife is of secondary importance. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation,including hiking."
Mike Vandeman wrote:
You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference. Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down hard. It's junk science, heck even calling it science is a stretch. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:57:49 GMT, jason
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: You actually posted JUNK SCIENCE. Some of us can tell the difference. Yes many of us can which is why you're science always gets slammed down hard. It's junk science, And how would you know? Qualifications, please! This should be good for a laugh. heck even calling it science is a stretch. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking."
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... S Curtiss wrote: Sure - No worried! Since your OPINIONS have been ignored, and you offer no corroboration from review or comment on your opinions by accredited persons, and cooperation has prevailed state to state and by federal agencies, and mountain biking continues to grow, and you continue to present to a handful of other "presenters" at conferences you don't even reference until they are over, and you insist on your definitions and generalizations... No worries at all for those of us who live in reality! That's the bottom line. Since no study has ever shown that mountain biking is any more damaging than hiking, people like MV have to resort to the type of lies that they have become infamous for. He still has never produced any citations or references for his position, because none exits. At this point, everyone basically agrees that mountain biking and hiking are about equal in trail and wildlife impact. Despite this, many hikers still would prefer that they have exclusive use to trails and to the back country, and it's understandable why. But they should be honest about the reasons, rather than trying to use false rationalizations like MV and ED. No one would think any worse of them if they would simply say, "we find it annoying to have to share trails with other users," and it would be a breath of fresh air from a pathological liar like MV. My point of view from the outset has been that I do not want to share hiking trails with bikers. For me it all has to do with the different mental attitudes that the two groups bring to recreation in the out of doors. These attitudes are not reconcilable. They are as different as night and day. That is the MAIN reason I do not want bikers on hiking trails. I do not believe I can say it any clearer than that. So why not just say that? Why all this "my sacred trails" and mysticism and pure souls and such? You have the option of hiking in many places without bikes. You also have the knowledge that shared use areas may have cyclists. Choose your environment. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Mountain biking is no more damaging than other forms of recreation, including hiking." | Edward Dolan | General | 147 | July 24th 06 07:03 PM |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Frequently Asked Questions about Mountain Biking | BB | Mountain Biking | 31 | July 4th 04 02:35 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 1 | May 5th 04 03:40 AM |
EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION (Including Mountain Biking) ON MULE DEER AND ELK | BB | Mountain Biking | 1 | April 27th 04 07:05 AM |